Oh My goodness. I will have to do some thinking on this one and talk with my fellow MP partners.

But first off the idea of combination multiplayer maps where you can combine for an assault against an ai enemy, or even another human opponents would be a real game changer.

I would love to see more than one way to acquire a Victory versus your opponent.

IE: You can either seize 3 Victory Objectives, or destroy 5 specific units, or capture Leningrad. Something like that.

The idea that you have to do more than just prevent the opponent from taking ground would be a nice aspect that seems to try to be captured in some of the maps in Panzer Corps, but seems that it could be developed further in Panzer Corps 2.

I think the only cooperative mode that really makes and sense is giving control to certain groups of units to each player and then simply have more than 2 players per turn. if you have players 1 and 2 play axis and player A and B play allies then the game would have 4 action phases per turn.
First player 1 moves the Germans, then player 2 moves the italians, then player A moves the Americans and Player B moves the British.

I really don't think players 1 and 2 should be allowed to move at the same time or even taking turns. player 1 should finish his turn before player 2 is allowed to move. That makes things a lot less complicated especially since the same scenario can easily be played by just 2 players, each taking control of the not present players' units as well.

Everything more complicated than this would just make scenario design a complete nightmare. And with this easy method even normal campaigns could easily be turned into coop campaigns simply by allowing the players during the deployment phase to select who will move which units. Done. MAYBE once that has been tested and it works perfectly one could think about adding stuff like relinquishing command over a unit to another player DURING a scenario but it should be kept as simple as possible at first. More complex stuff can easily be added by patches later but before it hits the main player base in a public beta things should not be made too complicated. Even the simple solution will sure reveal problems during a public beta.

goose_2 wrote:Oh My goodness. I will have to do some thinking on this one and talk with my fellow MP partners.

Great idea. Who else would know how to improve the Multiplayer if not our most active MP players?

goose_2 wrote:
I would love to see more than one way to acquire a Victory versus your opponent.
IE: You can either seize 3 Victory Objectives, or destroy 5 specific units, or capture Leningrad. Something like that.

Well this is a question of scenario design, so surely possible.

KeldorKatarn wrote:I really don't think players 1 and 2 should be allowed to move at the same time or even taking turns. player 1 should finish his turn before player 2 is allowed to move. That makes things a lot less complicated especially since the same scenario can easily be played by just 2 players, each taking control of the not present players' units as well.

If we can implement it then why now. Could save quite some time. But, technically it is of course much more difficult, so we may need to settle for the easier option.

In place of same prestige or units for both sides, I take the scenario objectives approach. then balance that with lots of MP play.

For example a German player would be on the offense while the Russian player on the defense. By using a combination of units, you can balance the map quite well using the other parameters of the game in scenario design.

In place of same prestige or units for both sides, I take the scenario objectives approach. then balance that with lots of MP play.

For example a German player would be on the offense while the Russian player on the defense. By using a combination of units, you can balance the map quite well using the other parameters of the game in scenario design.

There are examples of that in the original, and the Summer Offensive Balanced scenario in Soviet Corps was a product of just this kind of thinking. Thanks to the designer, and some helpful suggestions from yours truly.

My Budy Hurly, who is not ready for mp, brought up a great point about laddering and ranking players, kind of like what they did in StarCraft 2. That is the only other game I have ever played mp, it did not keep me however as I like turn based games.

so...not sure we can mimic what the Blizzard folks did, but I would like to see what we can try to do to encourage more newbies to play this game.

I'm not sure a ladder-system would work given the much smaller player-base of PC compared to SC2. A ladder would require hundreds of players playing at the same time so that you can be matched to people close to your skill.

Some point-system or summary stats could work though like simply showing win/loss ratios, etc.?

13obo wrote:I'm not sure a ladder-system would work given the much smaller player-base of PC compared to SC2. A ladder would require hundreds of players playing at the same time so that you can be matched to people close to your skill.

Some point-system or summary stats could work though like simply showing win/loss ratios, etc.?

That is true so something around stats displayed
campaign mode
cooperative play

These are all leaps in development that would be so awesome it almost makes me cry

PANZER CORPS 2 MULTIPLAYER
You will be able to play with up to 7 other people (so 8-players total) on the same map in both PvP AND PvE modes.

Multiplayer will be live, not via Matrix’s staple PBEM system that most of their other games use. The ‘how’ of this has yet to be determined, but there are examples of other titles that haven't used PBEM include; Empires Apart, which uses Steam’s back-end for multiplayer, and Battlestar Galactica: Deadlock, which used a third-party middle-ware company for online matches.

This has me extremely curious and excited, I will admit I have not been very interested in a Pz Corps 2 game, but seeing this has peaked my curiosity and interest in this game.

I love Panzer Corps, on an obsessive level, , but the aspect of multiplayer is what continues to keep and hold my interest.

If you guys need ideas, hit up the Devs over at Matrix, in the Close Combat Dept. They are doing and implementing the same mode in their new title "The Bloody First", they may be able to give ideas and pointers.

I think one important thing is to make games somehow connected to servers during your turn to prevent reloading the turn from the start. It is a common and easy cheat in panzer corps 1 to force shut down the game in the mid of your turn and then restarting your turn knowing enemy unit locations. Of course you can also to do it repeatedly to get the dice rolls you want.

goose_2 wrote:
Multiplayer will be live, not via Matrix’s staple PBEM system that most of their other games use. The ‘how’ of this has yet to be determined, but there are examples of other titles that haven't used PBEM include; Empires Apart, which uses Steam’s back-end for multiplayer, and Battlestar Galactica: Deadlock, which used a third-party middle-ware company for online matches.

That's not quite true. PBEM++ will still be an option. But if everything works as planned you'll also be able to switch to head to head live MP if both you and your opponent are online at the same time and back again to PBEM++ when your opponent is not around. If it works it will be the best of both worlds and pretty unique.

goose_2 wrote:
Multiplayer will be live, not via Matrix’s staple PBEM system that most of their other games use. The ‘how’ of this has yet to be determined, but there are examples of other titles that haven't used PBEM include; Empires Apart, which uses Steam’s back-end for multiplayer, and Battlestar Galactica: Deadlock, which used a third-party middle-ware company for online matches.

That's not quite true. PBEM++ will still be an option. But if everything works as planned you'll also be able to switch to head to head live MP if both you and your opponent are online at the same time and back again to PBEM++ when your opponent is not around. If it works it will be the best of both worlds and pretty unique.

There will be scenarios that need to be completed with a partner? I think that sounds wonderful and something I can really get behind. Partnership, relationship, and good times have been created because of this game.

goose_2 wrote:
Multiplayer will be live, not via Matrix’s staple PBEM system that most of their other games use. The ‘how’ of this has yet to be determined, but there are examples of other titles that haven't used PBEM include; Empires Apart, which uses Steam’s back-end for multiplayer, and Battlestar Galactica: Deadlock, which used a third-party middle-ware company for online matches.

That's not quite true. PBEM++ will still be an option. But if everything works as planned you'll also be able to switch to head to head live MP if both you and your opponent are online at the same time and back again to PBEM++ when your opponent is not around. If it works it will be the best of both worlds and pretty unique.

To me, live MP is awesome and will get me to buy a copy for a friend that cannot afford video games at the moment but will only play live MP. So great that this is finally coming to games like PC and OOB.